Returning Users

[MrMastodonFarm]

After seeing a plethora of returning users over the last couple weeks I've got to say, this no discussing it or calling them out is far and away the silliest and stupidest rule I've seen on this message board.

No disrespect to Ken who started the thread or any mod who thought it was a good idea, but the half dozen of you guys just can't keep up with the amount of continued returning guys. It really doesn't make any sense and choosing to protect the feeling posters that have been banned over posters that haven't been for x amount of years is mind boggling.

I haven't always been a good boy, I've had my infractions over the years but it's highly disappointing knowing that I could go ahead and get crazy tomorrow, get banned, and be back before church Sunday without anyone being able to call me out on my bullcrap.

I asked in the first reply if we could discuss the rule, so there I went. I know we're not supposed to whine about moderation on the forum but there really isn't another option.

JJust puzzling this rule.

[Rhettzky]

There are definitely more then a few returnees who are right back where they started prior to banning. Pretty frustrating that it takes them countless strikes to finally get banned but then just show up with a clean slate when they finally get the boot.

[Street Pharmacist]

I'm not sure why getting called out on the bullcrap is so important. If you want to go crazy so bad, is getting banned what is holding you back?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

After seeing a plethora of returning users over the last couple weeks I've got to say, this no discussing it or calling them out is far and away the silliest and stupidest rule I've seen on this message board.

No disrespect to Ken who started the thread or any mod who thought it was a good idea, but the half dozen of you guys just can't keep up with the amount of continued returning guys. It really doesn't make any sense and choosing to protect the feeling posters that have been banned over posters that haven't been for x amount of years is mind boggling.

I haven't always been a good boy, I've had my infractions over the years but it's highly disappointing knowing that I could go ahead and get crazy tomorrow, get banned, and be back before church Sunday without anyone being able to call me out on my bullcrap.

I asked in the first reply if we could discuss the rule, so there I went. I know we're not supposed to whine about moderation on the forum but there really isn't another option.

JJust puzzling this rule.

We've asked that people report folks that they think are returning - and when they do we discuss and make decisions on what to do.

This is a tricky issue because we don't want to punt people until we are fairly certain they are returning users.

I would also suggest though that you seem to be letting this issue cause you far too much anger. It is a hockey forum - if you are getting this twisted up about it I would maybe advise some self reflection. We have ignore features available - if some of these users are driving you this batty - use it.

Ultimately we are grown adults here that should be capable of dealing with some irritating posters. When the mods feel it is appropriate - people are being re-banned.

[MrMastodonFarm]

hahaha... I realize tone can be a difficult thing to judge online but I can guarantee it's causing me zero anger. Advising self reflection? Yikes.

It's more annoyance on an issue I feel is dragging down the forum, a forum I've enjoyed and been apart of for a while. It's fairly obvious which new poster a guy like moon is, using the same style that got him banned, yet he's allowed to continue under his new name. You're right, we are all grown adults. We should be capable of dealing with irritating posters but, we can't. The irritating returning posters are over running the forum, and the long term posters calling them out and reporting the posts are the ones being punished.

Save the self reflection advice for yourself next time.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

hahaha... I realize tone can be a difficult thing to judge online but I can guarantee it's causing me zero anger. Advising self reflection? Yikes.

It's more annoyance on an issue I feel is dragging down the forum, a forum I've enjoyed and been apart of for a while. It's fairly obvious which new poster a guy like moon is, using the same style that got him banned, yet he's allowed to continue under his new name. You're right, we are all grown adults. We should be capable of dealing with irritating posters but, we can't. The irritating returning posters are over running the forum, and the long term posters calling them out and reporting the posts are the ones being punished.

Save the self reflection advice for yourself next time.

Cripes man - everything is a fight with you.

Your post was confrontation and abrasive.

It is really hard to have a dialogue when that's the starting point.

If you aren't that angry about this - then why is this such a big deal to you?

This forum has an ugly side to it in which certain posters are targeted until they are banned. New posters are accused of being returning posters - and while some of the are - we aren't going to over-reaction and ban folks until we are certain. In some cases we choose to give people a 2nd chance if we feel they are showing changes to behavior.

But when the forum immediately starts a witch hunt - it makes that hard.

There is an ongoing discussion with the moderators on how to deal with the overall issue of returning users in an effective way. So we aren't ignoring the issue.

And again if you are getting worked up about certain posters who we haven't punted - the ignore feature is there for you.

[nik-]

I'm just amazed that people can remember all these posters and then build reasoning that such and such new poster is them. I can only really remember moon ... I don't remember any of these old usernames

I like that people can return though ... I'm sure if/when I get banned someday, I'd like to come back.

[MrMastodonFarm]

It's not a "big deal" but it's an issue because I enjoy the forum and I think returning users who are banned, and come back with the exact posting style days later is bringing down the forum. I've said that a couple times now. Don't know why thinking things should/can be done better and differently means I'm pissed off. Maybe stupid and silly are abrasive terms so I could have been more pleasant but tone is hard to judge, wasn't really upset or pissed off.

I suppose I'd like to see more openness with the moderators. It used to be not nearly as closed off. I don't think anyone has a problem with a 2nd chance but maybe come out and say "x poster was banned, yes it's him but we've given him a 2nd chance" etc.

Don't think it would be all that bad of an idea to open up the moderators to some forum members to bounce ideas off of. You've got a lot of great posters who might not make good moderators, might be helpful in the direction of the forum.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

It's not a "big deal" but it's an issue because I enjoy the forum and I think returning users who are banned, and come back with the exact posting style days later is bringing down the forum. I've said that a couple times now. Don't know why thinking things should/can be done better and differently means I'm pissed off. Maybe stupid and silly are abrasive terms so I could have been more pleasant but tone is hard to judge, wasn't really upset or pissed off.

I suppose I'd like to see more openness with the moderators. It used to be not nearly as closed off. I don't think anyone has a problem with a 2nd chance but maybe come out and say "x poster was banned, yes it's him but we've given him a 2nd chance" etc.

Don't think it would be all that bad of an idea to open up the moderators to some forum members to bounce ideas off of. You've got a lot of great posters who might not make good moderators, might be helpful in the direction of the forum.

We actually do engage with other members of the community to get their input on some stuff.

As for letting the forum know when a user has returned - that would defeat the purpose. Often a second chance isn't going to work if everyone knows who the poster is right away.

Of course I'm also often amazed also though at how often returning posters don't change anything about their posting patterns - I mean if I was going to try to sneak back in I would at least try to be somewhat covert about it.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I mean if I was going to try to sneak back in I would at least try to be somewhat covert about it.

Or maybe you are a returning poster, and this is you trying to be covert about it...

OMG. JiriHrdina = moon.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Or maybe you are a returning poster, and this is you trying to be covert about it...

OMG. JiriHrdina = moon.

Or am I...



MainFlame?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

As for letting the forum know when a user has returned - that would defeat the purpose. Often a second chance isn't going to work if everyone knows who the poster is right away.

Why would that defeat the purpose? The poster then may have to deal with things like:

a) Owning up to the action(s) that got them banned in the first place, including making apologies
b) Not hiding behind any veils of anonymity
c) Having a spotlight placed on them for their future behavior (which they have earned by being banned in the first place)

Which would actually be a pretty damned good litmus test to see if they have actually changed their behavior and deserve to continue posting here.

[Antithesis]

I'm going to assume that part of allowing a second chance is a clean break, which would be defeated by what is being suggested. Philosophically, I appreciate the idea of allowing a second chance, depending on circumstances. I love a good game of guess-who-the-returning-poster is as much as anyone, but more out of curiosity and humour than anything.

But when people start going off the rails and returning to their previous way of posting, or going back to previous habits that earned them a ban in the first place, I am all for them being called out, or any of the other consequences that arise from failing to learn from previous negative behaviours.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Why would that defeat the purpose? The poster then may have to deal with things like:

a) Owning up to the action(s) that got them banned in the first place, including making apologies

I believe said person would have to make apologies to the moderation team to get back in. I would think that not banned users get a second chance.

b) Not hiding behind any veils of anonymity
c) Having a spotlight placed on them for their future behavior (which they have earned by being banned in the first place)

Which would actually be a pretty damned good litmus test to see if they have actually changed their behavior and deserve to continue posting here.

They would be very closely watched by the moderation team with a warning that any further infractions would lead to an end to thier second chance and a permanent banning. It would be like a probation period where returnee gets to prove he/she was sincere with thier apology and have changed thier ways.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Why would that defeat the purpose? The poster then may have to deal with things like:

a) Owning up to the action(s) that got them banned in the first place, including making apologies

We're adults here and it's a message board not a workplace. If someone doesn't want to apologize for offending me, that's theirs and my business, and the moderators shouldn't need to concern themselves with it in my opinion.

b) Not hiding behind any veils of anonymity

Why give someone a second chance of their going to face vigilante justice? And everyone here is hiding behind anonymity. It's an Internet message board.

c) Having a spotlight placed on them for their future behavior (which they have earned by being banned in the first place)

If we are letting posters sort things out, why have moderators?

Which would actually be a pretty damned good litmus test to see if they have actually changed their behavior and deserve to continue posting here.

I disagree. People would likely just bait them into the same arguments and we'd be back at square one

[V]

MOD EDIT: We said not to discuss specific posters. If you want this thread to remain open to facilitate this dialogue then at least have a respect for that.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

We're adults here and it's a message board not a workplace. If someone doesn't want to apologize for offending me, that's theirs and my business, and the moderators shouldn't need to concern themselves with it in my opinion.

Exactly, as the person harmed, you should probably get some closure. As an example, if I was banned because I claimed you sold me Oxy without a perscription, listed the location of your Shopper's Drug Mart and your real name, you'd probably be pretty pissed if I came back without having to make amends with you, correct?

I know I would be upset with the Mod team if the circumstances were reversed.

If we are letting posters sort things out, why have moderators?

Because as mods on this site have admitted, they can't / don't read every single post and rely heavily on the "Report Post" Button.

I disagree. People would likely just bait them into the same arguments and we'd be back at square one

Then they don't deserve to be back. If someone can get baited into the exact same arguments that got them banned in the first place, then there was zero point to letting them back.

For instance _______ will always get "baited" into the same arguments, because we keep having them on the board, which will NEVER stop. We will always talk about Jay Feaster, Mark Jankowski, etc, etc. If that set someone off once, it will again.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Why would that defeat the purpose? The poster then may have to deal with things like:

a) Owning up to the action(s) that got them banned in the first place, including making apologies
b) Not hiding behind any veils of anonymity
c) Having a spotlight placed on them for their future behavior (which they have earned by being banned in the first place)

Which would actually be a pretty damned good litmus test to see if they have actually changed their behavior and deserve to continue posting here.

Pretty much my thoughts as well. I'm not asking nor expecting the moderating team to make an announcement about a returnee that they allow back everytime, but if the board is starting to guess it's them, just acknowledge that and the "outing" will stop. It's worked that way before with other posters. KevanGuy's simple "ok okay.. I get it" for another poster for example.

As a community it's really odd to have things we're flat out not allowed to discuss. I don't think a rule like this has existed outside obvious slander etc.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Exactly, as the person harmed, you should probably get some closure. As an example, if I was banned because I claimed you sold me Oxy without a perscription, listed the location of your Shopper's Drug Mart and your real name, you'd probably be pretty pissed if I came back without having to make amends with you, correct?

I know I would be upset with the Mod team if the circumstances were reversed.

You are describing a criminal offence, not insulting or baiting arguments. There's no parallel there. You don't "deserve" to have the people who run this site ensure you get your justice for insulting someone. If they put the site at risk by allowing defamation as you describe, they would not get a second chance to apologize anyways.

Because as mods on this site have admitted, they can't / don't read every single post and rely heavily on the "Report Post" Button.

There still are mods. Not sure what you're getting at here. They rely on us to inform but not adminster the rules.

Then they don't deserve to be back. If someone can get baited into the exact same arguments that got them banned in the first place, then there was zero point to letting them back.

For instance _______ will always get "baited" into the same arguments, because we keep having them on the board, which will NEVER stop. We will always talk about Jay Feaster, Mark Jankowski, etc, etc. If that set someone off once, it will again.

It's different if people are still calling a poster out if they comment at all on a certain topic. I doubt it's ever a topic that gets someone banned, it's how they respond to others when provoked about a topic. Remove the "calling someone out for a previous stance" and they get a clean second chance

[Dion]

9

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Then they don't deserve to be back. If someone can get baited into the exact same arguments that got them banned in the first place, then there was zero point to letting them back.

For instance _______ will always get "baited" into the same arguments, because we keep having them on the board, which will NEVER stop. We will always talk about Jay Feaster, Mark Jankowski, etc, etc. If that set someone off once, it will again.

People would go out of their way to try and bait said person with an attempt to get them banned again. The piling on for unpopular opinions that we often see here has a way of pushing people to the limits where the might say things they regret. Not exactly a fair way to give banned users a second chance.